Congressional Leadership Fund – OpenSecrets Newshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news
Breaking news, original reporting, and investigative journalism *on money in politics from the Center for Responsive PoliticsWed, 19 Dec 2018 02:30:02 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8Each of the five most expensive House races ever took place in 2018https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/12/each-of-the-five-most-expensive-house-races-ever-took-place-in-2018/
Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:30:18 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28918Excluding special elections, each of the five highest-spending House races ever was held this cycle. Democrats won in four of them.

In California’s 39th congressional district, Democrat Gil Cisneros won the most expensive non-special House race in history (MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)

The battle for control of the House led to unprecedented spending, by both candidates and super PACs, particularly in contested toss-up races.

Excluding special elections, each of the five highest-spending House races ever — including money spent by candidates and outside groups — were held this cycle. Four of those five races were rated as toss-ups.

With nearly $37 million spent in total, the battle for the open seat in California’s 39th District takes the cake for the most expensive non-special election House race ever.

Winning Democrat Gil Cisneros, a Navy war veteran and Mega Millions lottery winner, poured more than $9 million of his own money into his campaign and raised $2.8 million.

The Paul Ryan-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) made Cisneros its top target during the general election, buying $6.2 million in ads — including several roughly-$1 million ad buys in October — attacking the Democrat.

Deciding that the best defense is a good offense, the Nancy Pelosi-aligned House Majority PAC (HMP) spent $2.8 million in negative media buys against Republican Young Kim, most of which came during the same time as CLF’s spending spree. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) dropped another $2 million into the race to help Cisneros.

In California’s 48th District, losing incumbent Rep. Dana Rohrabacher was on the wrong side of $11 million in outside spending, the most in opposition spending of any non-special election House candidate in U.S. history. The 15-term congressman endured attacks from almost every major liberal super PAC in existence, these ads focused particularly on his denial of climate change and his frequent trips to Russia.

Among the environmental-focused super PACs, Independence USA spent a race-high $4.5 million in attack ads against Rohrabacher.

Worried about the prospects of a two-Republican race in California’s top-two system and eager to face off with the unpopular Rohrabacher, mainstream liberal groups had it out for Republican primary challenger Scott Baugh. The DCCC spent $1.7 million opposing Baugh and HMP added $833,856.

Victorious Democrat Harley Rouda got just 17.3 percent of the vote during the primary — 125 votes more than fellow Democrat Hans Keirstead — but received 52.9 percent in the general election. He raised nearly $8 million to Rohrabacher’s $2.7 million.

In another toss-up race won by the Democrat, Washington’s 8th District race drew nearly $19 million in outside spending. Seven outside groups spent $1 million or more.

Democratic Rep-elect Kim Schrier was aided by $12 million in outside spending and outraised Republican Dino Rossi $8.1 million to $4.8 million.

New York’s 19th District race was yet another example of a cash-flush Democrat beating an incumbent Republican in a toss-up battle. Rep.-elect Antonio Delgado raised more than $9 million to Republican Rep. John Faso’s $3.9 million.

Like in each race mentioned above, CLF spent roughly $4 million or more in unsuccessful attack ads against the Democrat.

Incumbent Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick barely fended off a challenge from Philadelphia multi-millionaire Scott Wallace, who self-financed his campaign to the tune of $12.8 million.

Just missing the cut, this cycle’s California 25th District race comes in sixth all-time for total spending at $30.7 million. Democratic winner Katie Hill raised more than $8 million and was aided by more than $12 million in outside spending.

The previous record holder was Florida’s 18th District race in 2012, where $29.6 million was spent in total. Incumbent Republican Rep. Allen West lost the race by a razor-thin margin, despite raising a stunning $19.4 million.

]]>Big city donors drive unprecedented fundraising in 2018 midtermshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/12/big-city-donors/
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:36:42 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28843Big city donors in the 10 most generous states added up to nearly $2.6 billion in contributions this cycle, compared to $1.4 billion for the rest of the U.S.

Contributors in the 10 most generous states — including Washington, D.C. — added up to nearly $2.6 billion in itemized contributions to candidates and outside groups this cycle, while the residents located in the rest of the country contributed less than $1.4 billion, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The 10 most generous metro areas in the U.S. accounted for more than $1.8 billion in itemized contributions this cycle, nearly doubling the $964 million figure in 2014.

Californians gave out an unprecedented $606 million in itemized contributions this cycle, only $130 million of which went to Republican candidates and conservative groups. That’s an increase of 72 percent over 2014 and a 87 percent increase in contributions to Democrats from The Golden State.

The most expensive and competitive Senate races drew out millions more in contributions from in-state donors.

Texas nearly doubled its 2014 total — $303 million over $167 million — and saw a 160 percent increase in contributions to Democrats. Unsuccessful Texas Senate challenger Beto O’Rourke accounted for a large portion of that increase, collecting nearly $26 million from his fellow Texans.

Missouri experienced a surge in contributions to Democrats and liberal groups, to $18 million this cycle from $3 million in 2014. Losing incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) raised $9 million of her $35 million haul from itemized in-state contributors.

Montana donors spent big on Democrats this cycle too, to the tune of $8.5 million compared to just $2 million in 2014. Nearly half of that money — $4 million — went to Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

Contributions from North Dakota residents more than doubled, and giving to conservative causes more than tripled, in the midst of Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s unsuccessful re-election campaign.

West Virginia is an outlier in that it held a competitive Senate race but also saw its in-state contributions drop by 26 percent, a state high. It is one of just seven states that had fewer in-state contributions in 2018 compared to 2014.

Washington, D.C. experienced one of the largest increases in contributions to Republican candidates and conservative outside groups, from $22 million to more than $65 million. The federal district contributed a total of $249 million, despite having a population of less than 700,000. K Street was a big factor, as lobbyists spent more than $39 million.

A handful of states saw more than half of their contributions come from one donor. In Wyoming, Pan Am Systems Chairman Timothy Mellon contributed $10 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC.

In eighteen states, the top donor from 2014 was also the most prolific donor this cycle. Liberal megadonors Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer highlight the list, making up more than 10 percent of contributions in 2018 and 2014 in New York and California, respectively. Of the 51 leading donors, 34 gave a majority of their money to Republican candidates and causes.

After staying out of the 2014 election, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson made up three-quarters of Nevada’s contributions this cycle. The Adelsons spent so much — more than $113 million — that they single-handedly brought Nevada from having the 28th-most contributions in 2014 to seventh-most this cycle.

The massive increase in contributions coming from specific ZIP codes highlights the sheer dominance of megadonors.

In Carmel, Indiana, itemized contributions from ZIP code 46032 jumped from less than $1 million to nearly $18 million. Of that massive sum, a combined $10 million comes from Deborah Simon and Cynthia Simon-Skjodt, daughters of the late shopping mall billionaire Melvin Simon.

The Simon sisters contributed more than $6 million to the Senate Majority PAC, which spent more than $17 million on media buys in an unsuccessful attempt to re-elect Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.).

In Manhattan, nearly all of the funds coming from Midtown ZIP code 10154 went to conservative groups, thanks to nearly $13 million from investment banker Stephen Schwarzman and his wife Christine. Together, the Schwarzmans are the eighth-highest spending donor this cycle and gave $8 million to the Senate Leadership Fund.

The Washington, D.C. metro area — which includes parts of Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia — was once again king in 2018, with more than $397 million in political contributions coming from the DMV.

Most of the biggest metropolitan areas saw large increases in political giving, with Democrats getting the lion share of the increase. The top 10 metros gave more than $1 billion to Democrats and liberal groups this cycle, nearly doubling their total $546 million number in 2014.

The shift also occurred in historically-Republican suburban areas such as Orange County, California — where Democrats made significant gains this cycle — and Long Island, New York.

Long Island contributed more to Democrats than Republicans — $15 million to $13 million — in a departure from 2014 trends when Republicans got nearly $6 million more. Island Republican legislators Lee Zeldin and Peter King held onto their seats despite being outraised by their Democratic opponents both in-state and in-district.

House Speaker Paul Ryan speaks at the National Republican Congressional Committee March Dinner (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Every election cycle, a handful of super PACs and party committees swing and miss, spending most of their millions in support of ultimately unsuccessful candidates.

The honor of “biggest loser” this general election cycle goes to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which spent just 25 percent of its money backing winning candidates or opposing losing ones. The party committee spent more than $2 million in negative ads against 14 different Democratic general election candidates — all but three won their races.

The Congressional Leadership Fund — a super PAC closely tied to the GOP House leadership and the cycle’s top overall outside spender — had a similarly tough night, spending only 32 percent of its money successfully. The group failed to fulfill its pledge to defend the House, spending more than $68 million in support of 24 Republican incumbents who would go on to lose their races.

Conversely, House Majority PAC — the super PAC associated with the Democratic House leadership — had a very good election night. Nearly 82 percent of the group’s money was spent against losers or for winners and its top 14-targeted Republicans were all defeated. It spent more than $39 million to elect 25 House Democratic challengers.

New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s super PACs were particularly successful in their support of House Democrats.

Independence USA PAC — funded almost entirely by Bloomberg — spent $22 million to help 14 Democratic challengers win their House races and had a 89.5 percent success rate on $37.5 million spent in the general election.

It was the only large super PAC to support Oklahoma 5th District Rep.-elect Kendra Horn in her upset victory, shelling out $429,664 days before the election. The super PAC heavily targeted the California 25th District race, aiding Rep.-elect Katie Hill with $4.5 million in positive ads and $568,856 in negative media against incumbent Rep. Steve Knight.

One way to achieve a high success rate is to put all of the eggs in one basket. The most successful group among the top ten general election spenders was New Republican PAC, which spent almost all (96.8 percent) of its money backing Rick Scott’s Florida Senate campaign.

Other single-candidate super PACs did not fare as well, however. The second-biggest such group, DefendArizona, spent all of its money — $17.8 million in the general election — backing Arizona Senate candidate Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and therefore ended up being the biggest spender with a zero percent success rate.

“Dark money” groups didn’t have their best election. Liberal political nonprofits VoteVets and Majority Forward — which heavily targeted Democratic Senate candidates — had success rates of just 34 and 42 percent, respectively.

Aiding big Republican victories in the Senate, America First Action did somewhat better, spending nearly 59 percent of its money successfully. However, it did spend more than $6 million supporting five unsuccessful House incumbents.

Other notably successful groups:

Human Rights Campaign ($2.1 million spent, 97.2 percent success) had the best track record of any group that spent on at least ten different races.

Among groups that spent at least $1 million on the general election, Republican Jewish Coalition ($1.7 million spent) was the only group to spend on multiple races and succeed in all of them.

Of the $1.07 billion in outside spending on the general election, 54.5 percent of it was successful (i.e., spent in favor of winning candidates or against losing candidates). That’s a slight increase from 2016 (48.1 percent) and 2014 (53.6 percent), but still, a fairly even split.

]]>The money behind GOP’s meager House pickupshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/money-behind-gop-meager-pickups/
Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:33:30 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28696Boosted by a late influx of media buys from outside groups, two Minnesota Republicans accounted for two of the GOP's three pickups in the House.

Boosted by a late influx of media buys from outside groups, Republicans won in both races, taking seats formerly occupied by Democrats. Liberal groups were caught napping, spending next to nothing in the leadup to the election on the battleground races.

In the 1st District, former U.S. Treasury official Jim Hagedorn beat Democrat Dan Feehan, a veteran and former Pentagon official, by roughly 1,300 votes. Hagedorn was outraised $3.6 million to $1.4 million, but he got the bulk of outside spending support during the final stretch.

Feehan was supported by a sprinkling of digital and radio ads in that time frame by MoveOn and the Alliance for Retired Americans, but nothing from major party-aligned groups. The NRCC spent more than $3.4 million in opposition to Feehan, making him its fifth-most targeted candidate this cycle. AFA spent $1.7 million against Feehan, third-most of any House candidate.

AFA’s most popular target was 8th District candidate Joe Radinovich — former campaign manager for retiring 8th District Rep. Rick Nolan — who fell to Republican Pete Stauber, a county commissioner and retired police lieutenant. The group spent nearly $3.3 million in opposition to Radinovich,who was also hit by $3.9 million from CLF.

Democratic groups didn’t fight back, spending $2.1 million to conservative groups’ $7.5 million and seemingly sacrificing the seat while they focused on other races.

The 8th District election result was closer than the spending battle, with Stauber winning by 5.5 points.

The first annual tax return filed by pro-Trump “dark money” group America First Policies and reviewed by the Center for Responsive Politics reveals that the 501(c)(4) nonprofit spent even more on political activities than previously reported in campaign finance disclosures.

As a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” nonprofit, is not allowed to have politics as its primary purpose despite spending millions on politicking.

Disparities between the new tax documents submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under the penalty of perjury and earlier disclosures to Federal Election Commission (FEC) indicate that millions of dollars in political spending may have been left undisclosed for many months.

America First Policies told the FEC that it spent $1.97 million in independent expenditures and $245,404 on electioneering communications in its first year of operation. But the “political campaign activities” spending it reported to the IRS for the same period was around twice that amount — $4.3 million — and its total spending reported for that period was even more.

While discrepancies in political expenditures reported to the IRS and FEC by politically active nonprofits are not uncommon — nor necessarily indicative of a false statement to either federal agency — dark money groups often try to mitigate their spending in tax returns’ descriptions of their political activities.

The IRS’ most recent Form 990 instructions note that “any expenditures made for political campaign activities are political expenditures. An expenditure includes a payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or anything of value. It also includes a contract, promise, or agreement to make an expenditure, whether or not legally enforceable.”

The broader coverage of the IRS definition of political campaign activities combined with groups’ equivocal descriptions of those activities often makes it difficult to compare the amounts reported in tax returns to what was reported to the FEC. Due to lack of communication between the IRS and FEC, this kind of discrepancy is often left undiscovered.

America First Policies, however, describes what the group’s political campaign activities entailed in detail.

Unlike many other politically active nonprofits that describe vague or varnished versions of their political activities to the IRS, the only activities America First Policies lists that the $4.3 million it spent on “political campaign activities” went to are “independent expenditures and advertising costs to support (or oppose) political candidates who agreed (or disagreed) with the organization’s policy initiatives” — despite the group only reporting $1.97 million in independent expenditures to the FEC for that period.

State-level campaign finance disclosures only show America First Policies’ $115,000 in-kind payment to its affiliated super PAC covering shared costs like payroll and office space, with no additional reported outside spending, according to National Institute on Money in Politics data.

Without additional information, it might appear that America First Policies failed to report what that $4.3 million was actually spent on to the IRS or failed to report that spending to the FEC entirely.

Despite the potential implications of a group misreporting political spending to the IRS or FEC, any substantial consequences are unlikely. The FEC has habitually deadlocked on whether to even pursue some of the most brazen “dark money” cases and a recent Inspector General report on nonprofit political activity found that IRS did not “adequately document research related to the allegation, tax-exempt laws evaluated, or the rationale,” failing to forward more than 1,000 cases of impermissible activity to the appropriate oversight committee.

But that $4.3 million only skims the surface of America First Policies’ spending.

In total, the 501(c)(4) spent $14.2 million during its first year of operation.

Of that, America First Policies reported $7.4 million of its “program services expenses” went to “lobbying” — though no corresponding records could be identified at the state or federal level.

America First Policies did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

America First Policies’ sister super PAC, America First Action, spent another $28.9 million on 2018 elections according to its most recent campaign finance records. The super PAC arm raised less than $4 million during its own first year of operation in 2017 but dramatically picked up fundraising this year, raking in over $32.7 million in the 2018 election cycle.

The America First groups have a cozy relationship, sharing workers, a phone number and other resources. The operation’s payments include big money to close allies of President Trump.

America First Policies new tax return reveals a $2.7 million payment to Parscale Strategy LLC, the firm helmed by Brad Parscale, the campaign manager for President Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. The Polling Company, the polling firm started by Trump’s White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, received an additional $661,988 from the group.

Its super PAC arm paid even more to Conway’s polling firm, Parscale’s digital firm, President Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson, according to FEC disclosures.

America First Policies’ payments also include $4.9 million to NMRPP LLC, a reference to National Media Research, Planning, and Placement LLC, a firm that has been accused of potentially being part of an illegal campaign coordination scheme for the National Rifle Association.

The groups have also held joint events catering to big donors attended by President Trump himself and the super PAC arm spent more than $400,000 at Trump properties, according to its FEC filings.

In some FCC filings, the two groups’ names are used almost interchangeably with at least one contract listing the advertiser as the super PAC on the first page of the invoice at its 501(c)(4) arm on a later page.

Both of the America First groups continued to air ads during the leadup to 2018 midterm elections.

President Barack Obama’s Organizing for Action (OFA) pioneered the use of 501(c)(4) nonprofits closely tied a president’s campaign and administration supporting their agenda. But the America First operation has taken that premise to the next level.

Unlike OFA, which did not operate as a 501(c)(4) until after President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election, political nonprofits have been active since the onset of President Trump’s first term. President Trump’s unprecedented move to register as a candidate for the 2020 presidential election on his first day in office has blurred the line between groups spending in support of the administration’s agenda versus those supporting his re-election as he negotiates dual-roles as president and candidate.

New tax documents filed by another pro-Trump 501(c)(4) nonprofit, Great America Alliance, show it raised and spent around $3.4 million during that period.

Its 2017 spending included $955,382 to Frontline Strategies for “management services,” $618,859 to RRT Media for “issue advocacy TV,” $369,306 to Campaign Solutions and $221,937 for “on-line issue advocacy,” and $124,435 to Apex Strategy Group for “issue advocacy TV.”

Great America Alliance reported just $291,181 that went to political campaign activities, claiming that it “educated voters through direct and indirect political advocacy messaging nationwide within the scope of applicable laws and regulations.”

Corporate disclosures reveal secret donors

Though America First Policies’ newly reported spending is larger than previously disclosed, the group’s fundraising may strike some as surprisingly low since reported millions less to the IRS than the $26 million the group told Axios it had raised earlier this year.

Although America First Policies itself does not reveal donors’ identities, corporate disclosures and tax records reveal the sources behind three of its five biggest donations — accounting for over a quarter of its funding.

Three of those companies — CVS, Dow Chemical and Southern Company — announced they would stop donating to America First Policies earlier in 2018 when donations came to light after CNN discovered that multiple staffers made comments decried “racist, sexist, anti-LGBT, and anti-Muslim” and another reportedly “praised” Nazis.

Topping America First Policies’ known donor list for its first year of operation is the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade group representing the drug company industry’s lobbying interests, which disclosed giving $2.5 million to America First Policies in a new tax return obtained by the Center for Responsive Politics and first identified by Maplight.

PhRMA also disclosed $1.5 million to American Action Network (AAN), a dark money group closely aligned with GOP House leadership, in 2017 on top of around $6 million the prior year for a total over $13.5 million since AAN first became active in 2010.

America First Policies’ tax returns report a total of $22 million received from 33 donors in 2017, with gifts ranging from $5,000 to $5 million, as first reported by Politico.

The identity of America First Policies’ biggest donors remains a mystery, leaving the source of more than $16.5 million from secret donors — including a $5 million donor, $4.5 million donor, and multiple million-dollar donors — unaccounted for.

]]>Donors helped Democrats to modest 2018 victories in the upper midwesthttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/donors-helped-democrats-to-midwest-victories/
Fri, 09 Nov 2018 21:43:28 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=282362018 was a good election cycle for Democrats in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Michigan. In many of the pivotal races, money played a big role.

Many on the left were disappointed in the results of the so-called “blue wave” at a national level, but you might not know it by looking at the states between the Dakotas and Lake Erie. The Democrats’ wins in the region come thanks in part to generous donors eager to shift the region’s political landscape.

The upper Midwest was key in Trump’s 2016 presidential victory, but just two years later it pushed back against Republicans. Several Republican-leaning districts turned blue and governor’s mansions in Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois fell into Democratic control.

Minnesota already had a Democratic governor, Mark Dayton. Dayton served two terms. He was succeeded by Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) who beat Jeff Johnson with almost 54 percent of the vote. While in the House, Walz established himself as a reliable fundraiser, raking in more than his opponent in every race since 2008.

Democratic Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith both kept their seats. Thanks to Al Franken’s departure from the chamber, the state voted in two Senatorial races in the same election for the first time in 40 years.

Klobuchar trounced her opponent in terms of fundraising, pulling in more than 47 times as much as he did. 55 percent of Klobuchar’s contributions came from outside Minnesota. After the election, Politico said Klobuchar “deserves a fresh look as a presidential candidate.”

Smith also outraised her opponent, though not nearly as dramatically as Klobuchar did hers. Labor and agribusiness PACs kicked in $176,500 and $96,500 respectively to help Smith arrive at $8.1 million.

Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.) and Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) lost seats in Minnesota’s 2nd and 3rd Districts. Lewis, formerly a right-wing radio host, courted controversy after misogynistic comments he made on his show surfaced. The clips had Lewis expressing disbelief that women could no longer be called “sluts” and singling out Madonna as an example, saying she “had a series of lovers” and “dress(ed) up in these sorts of prostitute-like outfits.”

Lewis lost his seat in Minnesota’s 2nd District to Angie Craig, the first lesbian mother elected to the House of Representatives, despite outraising her by over $2 million.

The Grassroots-Legalize Cannabis party earned six percent of the vote in the Minnesota attorney general’s race and will now be recognized as a full-fledged political party throughout the state.

In Illinois, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners said the turnout rates they tracked were higher than anything they had seen in over three decades.

In the highly anticipated 14th Congressional District race, Lauren Underwood defeated Randy Hultgren in a tight contest. The reliably conservative 14th District is in Northeast Illinois, between Chicago and the Wisconsin border. Underwood is a nurse from Naperville, one of Chicago’s west-suburbs. She will be the first woman and the first African American to represent the eighty-plus percent white district.

“I do think people like to have checks and balances,” Hultgren said after the results came in. “We kind of knew the House was where the battle was going to be at.”

Both Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a regional figurehead, and President Trump endorsed Hultgren.

Underwood, meanwhile, was endorsed by Joe Biden and occasional-Chicagoan Barack Obama. The candidate was also buoyed by tens-of-thousands in contributions from prestigious universities, including Stanford, the University of California, the University of Chicago and Northwestern University. Over 70 percent of contributions to Underwood came from outside of Illinois. Only about 16 percent of Hultgren’s did.

Northwest of Chicago, not far from the 14th, Sean Casten ousted Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) from his seat in the 6th Congressional District. Casten is a climate-minded scientist. Roskam is a lawyer who dug in his heels against the Affordable Care Act. In 2016, the sixth voted for Hillary Clinton, handing her a seven-point win. In 2012, they favored Romney by eight points. The New York Times said this race was “emblematic of a type of district that could decide control of the House.”

Roskam actually outraised Casten by over $1 million, but Casten had help from the likes of Alphabet Inc. and Bain Capital.

Mitt Romney founded Bain Capital in the early 1980s, and while it has a mixed history of giving to both Republicans and Democrats, it now gives to Democrats almost exclusively. The big exception is Romney himself, to whom they contributed $83,700. That is over $20,000 more than they gave to anyone else.

Further north, Wisconsinites broke midterm-records, coming out in higher numbers than ever before with well over half of the voting age population casting ballots.

Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.), long a centerpiece of political life for Wisconsinites, lost the top-job in Madison to Tony Evers, a three-term state superintendent, and Wisconsin’s liberal senator, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), successfully protected her seat from challenger Leah Vukmir. Baldwin had over $29 million to work with, outraising Vukmir more than five-fold.

Wisconsin Democrats’ most visible loss came from what may have been their most ambitious campaign. Randy Bryce, a union ironworker and military veteran, ran for Paul Ryan’s seat in Wisconsin’s 1st District on a platform in-line with those of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In spite of a spate of endorsements and an influx of cash, he was beaten by Bryan Steil, a lawyer for Charter NEX Films. Steil was endorsed heartily by Paul Ryan. The Congressional Leadership Fund spent $2.6 million on anti-Bryce ads, which stirred up controversy by invoking Bryce’s past arrests for offenses ranging from drunk driving to missed child support payments.

Democrats managed to flip some U.S. House seats in Michigan. Elissa Slotkin, formerly of the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, beat incumbent Rep. Mike Bishop (R-Mich.) in Michigan’s 8th District. Thanks in part to her work for Arlington and Langley, Slotkin accrued unlikely endorsements from national security-focused Republicans. Slotkin pledged to accept no corporate PAC money from her campaign and has been outspoken on campaign finance issues.

“Our campaign finance system is broken — and voters know it in their bones,” said Slotkin. “We have seen how the vast sums of money in our elections have given corporations undue influence over Congress, putting the interests of powerful insiders and corporations ahead of constituents.”

Slotkin still outraised her opponent by over three million, raking in over $100,000 from Universities and $49,958 from EMILY’s List. She also received hefty contributions from Alphabet Inc. and Bain Capital.

Bishop received $24,600 from Amway, which was co-founded by Richard DeVos, patriarch of the politically-connected DeVos family. (DeVos passed away in Sept. 2018.) Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was his daughter-in-law.

Haley Stevens also beat Lisa Epstein for an open seat in the 11th District, near Detroit. Stevens worked on the auto task force convened by President Obama in 2009, and Epstein helped run Trump’s 2016 Michigan campaign. Stevens outraised Epstein by well over $1 million. Like Slotkin, she had help from Alphabet Inc. and Bain Capital, which gave her $15,714 and $13,500 respectively.

With Gretchen Whitmer’s decisive victory, Michigan joined Wisconsin and Illinois in welcoming Democratic governors. Whitmer’s opponent’s platform, which found its foundation in slashing taxes, fell flat. He ended up with around 44 percent of the vote. Whitmer said that as Governor she would “fix the damn roads” and fight the expansion of the charter school system.

Charter schools are a pet-issue of Betsy DeVos, who hails from Holland, Michigan. Holland is in Michigan’s 2nd Congressional District, a conservative stronghold where incumbent Republican Bill Huizenga decisively beat Democratic and libertarian candidates with over 55 percent of the vote.

Though the Democrats fared well in the upper midwest, 2018 was by no means a sweep. Republicans persevered in several pivotal midwestern races. Maybe the most notable example is Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). King is known for his nativist sentiments and has earned praise from David Duke, once the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Though his opponent raised twice as much money and much of the state turned blue, King won over fifty percent of the vote and clung to his seat in Iowa’s fourth district.

Indiana also broke from its northern neighbors to stay red, not giving up any House seats to Democrats and dumping Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) for Mike Braun, despite Donnelly embracing President Trump and showing support for the border wall. Democrats now hold zero statewide offices in Indiana.

“We are conservatives being led by President Trump,” said Mike Braun after results poured in from around the state. “We’ve got to prove why our way of thinking, why what works in the state of Indiana, is gonna work for the rest of America.”

Still, many red districts flipped elsewhere in the midwest. (And in states that stretch the definition of Midwestern. There is some ambiguity as to what counts.) In Oklahoma’s 5th District, Kendra Horn turned a reliably conservative district blue with the help of a Bloomberg-backed super PAC. In Kansas’s 3rd, Sharice Davids blasted through a series of glass ceilings to become the first LGBT Kansan, the first Native American Woman (sort of — it’s a tie), and the first MMA fighter to win a congressional election. (Davids is yet another new congressperson who can count both Bain Capital and Alphabet Inc. as two of her top contributors.)

It would be going too far to say the Democrats can declare a full-on victory in the upper midwest, but after a 2016 cycle in which Wisconsin and Michigan both looked like Trump-country (Wisconsin voted for a Republican president for the first time since Ronald Reagan and Michigan did so for the first time since George H.W. Bush.) the region is visibly competitive again.

If Democrats can keep raising money and winning elections as they did in much of the upper midwest in 2018, there is a chance they could finally get their blue wave in 2020, or at least prolong a purple tide.

]]>Most expensive midterms in history set several spending recordshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/2018-midterm-records-shatter/
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 18:34:09 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28207From start to finish, and at every level of the ballot, the 2018 election cycle set campaign finance records — often by huge margins.

Rep. Beto O’Rourke (R-Texas) lost his bid for U.S. Senate in 2018, but he shattered fundraising records in the process. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

From start to finish, and at every level of the ballot, the 2018 election cycle set campaign finance records — often by huge margins.

First, the topline numbers: 2018 will prove to be by far the most expensive midterm on record. CRP estimates the final cost at $5.2 billion, a 35 percent increase over 2014 in nominal dollars. Part of the reason for that is a truly staggering increase in outside spending, which at $1.31 billion is up 61 percent over 2014. The week before the election, this cycle also surpassed 2012’s outside spending ($1.29 billion) and is now the second-most expensive cycle ever — midterm or presidential — in terms of outside spending.

The first clue that the 2018 cycle would smash campaign finance records was 2017’s slew of special elections. The special election in Georgia’s Sixth District blew away the previous record for most expensive House race, and the Democrat Jon Ossoff set the record for most money raised ($30.4 million) by a House candidate in his losing effort.

In the general election, no House race matched the GA-06 special, but California’s 39th District, an open seat vacated by Republican Ed Royce, is now the most expensive non-special House election ever in terms of combined spending by candidates and outside groups. And California’s 48th District, featuring a competitive primary and then a top-target general election between incumbent Republican Dana Rohrabacher and Harley Rouda, is now the top non-special House election in terms of outside spending alone. Both races are still undecided pending the counting of mail-in ballots.

On the Senate side, the Texas race between incumbent Republican Ted Cruz and Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke is the most expensive congressional election ever in terms of spending by candidates. O’Rourke himself now holds the record for the most money raised by a congressional candidate at $69.1 million — though Florida Senate hopeful Rick Scott is only a few hundred thousand dollars behind him and could overtake him when the final post-general FEC reports are filed. At $181.2 million, the still-undecided Florida Senate race is also the most expensive election ever in terms of combined candidate and outside spending when only the candidates who made it to the general election are included, narrowly surpassing 2016’s Pennsylvania Senate race ($179.5 million).

Several records for midterm spending by specific groups also shattered. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC closely tied to the GOP House leadership, spent $137.5 million, by far the most ever by a super PAC in a midterm and just short of the record for anycycle (held by Restore Our Future, which spent $142.1 million in support of Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign). It was also a big year for super PACs that spend the vast majority of their money backing a single candidate. The pro-Rick Scott New Republican PAC spent $29.5 million hammering Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), by far the most money spent by any group on a single congressional election.

Unlike individual donations, PAC donations do not set new records every cycle because contribution limits to and from PACs do not increase with inflation. That said, one specific type of PAC did reach new heights: leadership PACs. These committees, which politicians establish to donate to their fellow partisans and increase their influence, gave nearly $51 million to federal candidates, barely beating out 2014’s total. And Majority Committee, the leadership PAC associated with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), set the record for most donations to candidates by a leadership PAC in one cycle at nearly $2.3 million.

Note: All numbers cited above may increase further still. Candidates and most committees will have to file their post-general election reports with the Federal Election Commission by 12/6, covering financial activity from 10/18 through 11/26.

]]>Democrats ride monster fundraising to take the House, GOP successfully picks its Senate battleshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/2018-wrap-up-am/
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 16:59:33 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28174In what was the most expensive midterm election ever, a cash advantage didn’t always translate to success at the polls, but it did decide most races.

Josh Hawley captured the Missouri Senate seat Tuesday, despite being heavily outraised by incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill. He was the beneficiary of more than $40 million in outside spending, including $25 million from dark money and partial-disclosing groups. (Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images)

Still, the candidate with more money won most of the time, and fundraising and outside spending trends appear to match up with election results. Democrats soundly took the House while outraising Republicans by more than $300 million. Republicans picked up several seats in the Senate despite being outraised overall, but in key toss-up Senate races in red states, candidate fundraising and outside spending totals were generally close.

Eighty-nine percent of House races were won by the biggest spender, compared to 84 percent of Senate races. When factoring in outside money and fundraising, the House candidate supported by more money won 91 percent of the time and the better-funded Senate candidate won 84 percent of the time.

“Despite record numbers of women, people of color, and first-time candidates running, yesterday’s results show, once again, how powerful money is in our politics,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. “Whether dark money funneled through super PACs or funds raised from small donors, these midterm elections were deluged with money.”

Democrats made it a point to challenge every House seat, even in the reddest districts, and the strategy paid off with a handful of upsets.

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) did its best to try to keep the House red — spending more than $137 million in media to lead all outside groups — but with Democratic candidates raising millions across the country, the group simply couldn’t afford to defend every seat.

On the Senate side, liberal ‘dark money’ group Majority Forward was less successful. It spent more than $24 million to support Democratic Senate hopefuls in Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana and Florida. Two of the races are confirmed to have gone to the GOP and Republicans lead in Arizona and Florida.

In Missouri, Republican Senate winner Josh Hawley got the most outside support from a combination of dark money and partially-disclosing groups, which either don’t disclose all of their donors or accept money from dark money sources. He was boosted by $25 million in media expenditures from these groups, including more than $20 million from the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, which accepts millions from dark money nonprofit One Nation.

For the first time ever, outside spending outpaced the amount of money raised by candidates in 40 races. The number will likely fall as candidates’ final fundraising numbers are filed with the FEC.

The Senate fundraising numbers are skewed by the biggest Democratic recipients, several of whom set fundraising records in losses. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) lost her seat to Kevin Cramer despite outraising him $27 million to $5.5 million. Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) fell to Sen. Ted Cruz despite collecting a record $69 million through Oct. 17.

On the other hand, some candidates didn’t need to raise much to win their races. Sen. Mazie Hirono won with less than $3.3 million raised.

The cheapest congressional win went to Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), who won while spending less than $175,000. Her opponent didn’t crack $6,000 raised.

]]>Special election races resurface with new Democratic challengershttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/special-election-races-resurface/
Mon, 05 Nov 2018 21:07:23 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28126The biggest special elections of 2017 and 2018 are back, but this time they each have to share the limelight with dozens of other close, crucial races.

Lucy McBath (pictured) is facing off with Rep. Karen Handel, who defeated Jon Ossoff in last year’s special election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District seat. (Mark Makela/Getty Images)

The biggest special elections of 2017 and 2018 are back, but this time they each have to share the limelight with dozens of other close, crucial House races.

With much less national attention being paid to them, the elections aren’t drawing nearly as many dollars in outside spending. Still, Democrats — riding an enthusiastic donor base and flush with cash — are taking another swing at all of the special election districts Republicans won by slight margins.

Balderson, who is favored to win in the Republican-leaning central Ohio district, has received serious support from the GOP. More than $1 million in outside money has been spent in opposition of O’Connor since the special election and approximately $4.8 million between both elections.

Vice President Mike Pence visited Columbus to campaign for Balderson and President Donald Trump tweeted his support for the brand new congressman.

O’Connor has held the cash advantage throughout. He raised $7.3 million between the two election cycles — drawing 79 percent of his large individual contributions from out-of-state — and had $879,369 cash on hand as of Oct. 17.

Balderson, on the other hand, has collected $2.1 million in total and has $176,000 to spend.

In the most closely-watched special election and the most expensive House race in history, Rep. Karen Handel (R-Ga.) defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff by 4 points, despite being outraised $23.6 million to $4.5 million.

This time, Handel is going up against Lucy McBath, a gun control activist who tragically lost her son to gun violence. She has drawn a stunning $4.6 million in outside spending support, more than $4 million of which comes from Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Opposition spending has also been focused on McBath, with $1.6 million dedicated to negative ads.

The two are neck-and-neck in fundraising. Handel has outraised McBath $1.9 to $1.8 million since the special election.

The race has significantly tightened as time has gone on. A Nov. 4 poll from Siena/New York Times gives McBath a two-point edge. FiveThirtyEight gives Handel a 4 in 7 chance to win.

Though Democratic opponent Robert Quist outraised Rep. Greg Gianforte (R-Mt.) during the 2017 special election $6.6 million to $4.8 million, Gianforte was victorious thanks in part to $5.4 million in negative advertising against Quist.

However, with little attention being paid to the Montana battle between Gianforte and Democratic state legislator Kathleen Williams, the flow of outside money has all but dried up.

It’s actually Williams, not the Republican incumbent, who is getting outside support. Independent expenditures supporting Williams add up to $230,253 and more than $194,000 has been spent in opposition to Gianforte.

Williams won a six-way Democratic primary in June, despite being outraised by her opponents. She’s raised nearly $3.3 million, compared to Gianforte’s $4.5 million haul since the special election.

This district is less competitive, as Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz) beat Democratic candidate Hiral Tipirneni by 5 points in April. Still, all of the heavy hitters, including the NRCC, CLF and the Republican National Committee spent in the race to support Lesko.

That support largely hasn’t been there for the candidates’ rematch. Lesko has received $245,398 in outside spending support and no money has been spent against her opponent.

Still, after losing in the special election, Tipirneni isn’t getting national support from Democratic groups. Of her total $4 million haul, 57 percent comes from small individual contributions.

]]>Election Day Eve: what the parties have spent on the Midtermshttps://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/11/what-the-parties-have-spent-on-the-midterms/
Mon, 05 Nov 2018 20:49:47 +0000https://www.opensecrets.org/news/?p=28123As the costliest midterm elections ever draw to a close, the Democratic and Republican parties have raised massive sums for campaigns across the country.

On the eve of the midterms, here’s what the Democratic and Republican parties, their respective committees and the major liberal and conservative super PACs have spent so far this cycle.

At this point, the Democratic Party has spent more than the Republican Party. The Democratic Party spent $738 million on campaigns across the country, while the Republican Party has spent $694 million.

Super PACs that support liberal and conservative candidates have also spent big through independent expenditures.

The conservative super PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, has spent $137 million on Republican House candidates, outspending the National Republican Congressional Committee on independent expenditures.

The Democratic equivalent, House Majority PAC, has spent considerably less this cycle. The super PAC spent $71 million so far this cycle on Democratic congressional candidates.